Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:59 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 01:50 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I have no idea about Cuba but I spend a few months a year in China. It's not that bad a place and I go into the interior, no real tourists where I go. Is it because of the communist stigma or what?

May I ask what you do that takes you to China annually? While you're there, do you experience things like censorship on the internet, intrusive governmental agencies, having to be more careful than you would elsewhere, etc.?

I go there for my job. It's not annually, it's a few weeks every quarter so in total, it's about 2 months a year. I do see the censorship there however, I want to point out that some of the places, like here, are worse than others. For example, I can access 4chan from Beijing but not in the university I go to in Zhengzhou. I can see xhamster as well in Beijing. I can't access google, youtube, or facebook, but there are alternatives available (i.e wechat, youku, and QQ). I have seen soldiers walking through the airports with assault rifles but I have also seen them on the train platforms in New Jersey as well. I have had no fear of anything while I was there. I have been felt up by a cute airport worker in security once but I didn't mind that (that kind of intrusive government I don't mind) and that would NEVER happen here to me. I have had to send my picture to the local PD for file purposes but that is pretty much what you have to do here too. Most of my colleagues there are more scared of coming here actually. They want to see the US but they think that everyone is strapped. They have no fear of being gunned down at a social gathering. Can we say the same? Over the last several years, it has become more clear to me that Americans have quite a lot in common with the Chinese, more than we realize.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
09-10-2017, 02:33 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 01:55 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  We hated the war so much that veterans who returned were treated like shit. None of them would talk about that war either. Because if they did, they’d be called a baby burner.

You should have seen post-war Germany.

It's the mess that greets the loser.

Yeah, but also congress cut out a hunk of funding that was earmarked for the returning veterans and service related stress (PTSD).

But my point also was we treated the those who dodged the draft just as bad.

I have never understood that particular line of thought. John Kerry was right was throw his metals away and yet, decades later he was essentially flamed for doing it.

I really wish america would make up their mind.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-10-2017, 02:37 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:33 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I really wish america would make up their mind.

Now, I am pretty sure that this will never, ever happen. Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 02:55 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:28 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 02:18 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Correct but irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant just because it inconveniences the point you were attempting to make. The difference is stark: the United States was fighting a war against the aggressors. It did not invite itself into a conflict that it had absolutely nothing to do with.
You're violating their given truth bubble. Just sayin'.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 03:02 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 03:06 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:28 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 02:18 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Correct but irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant just because it inconveniences the point you were attempting to make. The difference is stark: the United States was fighting a war against the aggressors. It did not invite itself into a conflict that it had absolutely nothing to do with.

Germany declaring war would have been irrelevant if there was no shipping to sink and no soldiers to fight. That was the point I was making. If we were truly neutral, there would have been nothing for Germany to do. Much like getting into a Twitter fight with someone who never logs onto Twitter to read the tweets. I didn't ignore anything.

Also, Germany declared war against the US on Dec 11th, three days after we declared war on Japan. We then declared war on Germany later in the day on the 11th. The Dec 8th declaration of war was only against Japan and no one else. Germany arguably wouldn't have declared war on the US at that time if we weren't shipping millions of tons of supplies to England and Russia. To them, we were already participating in the war. You don't have to fire a rifle to be a participant. Declaring war allowed Germany to attack the shipping and ports.

I agree the circumstances were different. That is why I said it depends. Out of curiosity, what do you feel about the UN?

Edit: according to the politicians at the time, the communists were the aggressors. Just look up any old PR film from the 50's and 60's, they laid it on pretty thick.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
09-10-2017, 03:03 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:55 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 02:28 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is not irrelevant just because it inconveniences the point you were attempting to make. The difference is stark: the United States was fighting a war against the aggressors. It did not invite itself into a conflict that it had absolutely nothing to do with.
You're violating their given truth bubble. Just sayin'.

Not sure who this is directed at.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 03:03 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:18 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Quite right. The Greeks fought valiantly and passionately to defend their soil however I personally wouldn't call Italian and German occupation "threatened". The axis invaded, the Germans pushed all the way through the country and Greece was divided up into three sectors (German, Italian, and Bulgarian). The British were fighting with the Greek army as well (should they have been there?). The people of Crete weren't threatened, they were brutalized. Almost a half million Greeks perished under occupation. "Threatened" is not what you say and then leave 400,000+ dead and a Jewish population near zero.

Well, I obviously meant they were threatened before they were forced to fight.

As for the British fighting with us, can't say it was very helpful, considering they were responsible for the deaths of many Greeks before and after WWII. If your interests define who you save and who you kill (and your interests change every couple of decades), thanks, but no thanks.

(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Correct, you did. Now play the chess game. If the US only fought Japan because they bombed us (no countries in Europe attacked us) and openly said that there was to be no intervention in any European or African country (since you correctly pointed out that Europe isn't a country) do you really think that Hitler wouldn't have shipped the armies in France to the East? Do you think that the Italian Army would have left Greece if the Allies hadn't invaded Africa and Italy and severely damaged the German army there and smashed the Italian army? The answer is simple: NO. If the Germans or Italians had no fear of an invasion from the West or South, they would have had literally millions more men to fight the Russians and occupy places like Greece.

The reason the Axis left Greece ultimately is due to the advancement of the Red Army which may not have happened (or at least as quickly) had the Axis been able to move these soldiers to the West because of there being no second or third front. That is the reason you're not speaking German or Italian. Other countries intervened in a conflict that was not directed at them (Canada and the US). Sometimes, it's the right thing to do. The hard part is knowing when it's right.

No need to defend US interventions in WWII, because, as many other countries, the US was attacked (unlike what happened with Vietnam), so they had to react, obviously. It doesn't matter that only the Japanese attacked on American soil. They were Germany's allies, so the US technically would have fought against Hitler even if they hadn't fought on European soil.

(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Now I am not trying to downplay the Greeks and the bravery they displayed in resisting the brutal occupying forces and nor am I saying that the US saved the world (we didn't and we screwed it up worse to an extent). It was a conglomeration of very brave men and women in many countries who stood up to tyranny each in their own way. I was merely saying that your statement:

..if adopted by the US back in the 40's, would have had catastrophic implications to you and all of us. This attitude was literally the isolationist argument back in the late 30's and early 40's when places like Greece were invaded. Which is why I said that the answer is "it depends."

I think that our intervention in the 40's was appropriate. In Vietman, it wasn't. It always depends on the situation.

But that's exactly what I was saying. The US intervened because they were attacked, that is not one of the cases I'm talking about. It was called a world war. Not a "European" war. I'm talking about wars the US started or intervened in without being threatened (them or their allies), driven only by profit.

Yes, it always depends. That's why I said "X country that isn't the US War" (thus excluding any wars during which the US was attacked or actively threatened) and not any war.

I see what you're saying.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 03:38 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 03:03 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 02:55 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  You're violating their given truth bubble. Just sayin'.

Not sure who this is directed at.
In about 1100% of the cases on record responding to a quote is directed at the person being quoted.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
America was not alone. The real mistake was France wanting to continue colonial rule following WWII.

They were warned.

Then they dragged everyone else in and pissed off.

I think what is often neglected in these arguments is the events that led to it. There had been two world wars. The Berlin airlift and the wall. Korea, then Vietnam not long after.

People's nerves were on edge. Paranoia was rampant.

That entire century was a disaster. And we feel it's effects to this day.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
09-10-2017, 03:49 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
deGaulle wanted to salvage some of France's pride. He figured he could roll over the VM. War weariness trumped "face".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: